| McCain vs. Obama on the Environment |
|
How do McCain and Obama compare in their environmental policies?
"McCain vs. Obama on Environment, Energy,
and Resources" written by Michael B. Gerrard. The environment is one of the significant issues receiving attention this presidential election. This article takes a look at the environmental positions of the two presidential candidates and compares them. It does so by looking at their voting records, endorsements, and the positions the candidates have taken on the environment through their campaigns, speeches, and responses to voter questionnaires. Looking at specific environmental issues such as climate change and oil drilling the candidates are fairly similar in their positions. Both candidates in the late 1990's opposed the Kyoto Protocol. However, both candidates have taken more aggressive stances regarding climate change with Sen. McCain going out of his way to distance himself from President Bush's failed Kyoto diplomacy. Furthermore, both candidates support cap and trade schemes although there is slight variation between their two plans. As far as ending the federal moratorium on offshore oil drilling both candidates initially opposed ending it. However, both candidates concerned about the rising gas prices have supported its end to varying degrees with Sen. McCain ready to end it now and Sen. Obama taking a more deliberative approach. The largest difference between the two candidates becomes apparent when talking about energy sources. Coal fired power plants are the largest source of green house gas emissions in the United States. Accordingly, both candidates support significant federal investments in the development of carbon capture and sequestration technology. While the candidates share similar views regarding coal they diverge significantly when it comes to nuclear, biofuels, and renewables. On the issue of nuclear power Sen. McCain has been a staunch supporter of increasing its use. Sen. McCain would like to construct 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030, with the ultimate goal of building 100 new plants. Furthermore, Sen. McCain has supported the federal government's plan to dispose of spent nuclear fuel rods at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. However, his support for Yucca Mountain's use as a nuclear waste dump has recently been waning. He stated, in May 2008 to the Las Vegas Sun, "I would seek to establish an international repository for spent nuclear fuel that could collect and safely store materials overseas that might otherwise be reprocessed to acquire bomb-grade materials. It is even possible that such an international center could make it unnecessary to open the proposed spent nuclear fuel storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada." Sen. Obama's alternative stance on nuclear energy is that there is no future for expanded nuclear power without first addressing four key issues: public right-to-know, security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Furthermore, Sen. Obama believes that Yucca Mountain is not an option. His take is that the government has spent billions of dollars on Yucca Mountain, and yet there are still significant questions about whether nuclear waste can be safely stored there. In the short term, Sen. Obama would like to develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry-cask storage technology available. In the long term, Sen. Obama would lead federal efforts to look for a safe, long term disposal solution based on objective scientific analysis. On the issue of biofuels Sen. Obama is a much stronger supporter of their use than Sen. McCain. Sen. Obama has supported corn subsidies and co-sponsored several bills to increase domestic production, distribution, and use of biofuels. Sen. Obama also stated in his energy fact sheet that he would work to ensure that advanced biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol, are developed and incorporated into our national supply as soon as possible. On the other hand, some observers have pointed to Sen. McCain's opposition to corn subsidies for ethanol production as a reason he lost in the Iowa presidential caucuses. Furthermore, Sen. McCain has proposed ending the 54 cent tariff on ethanol imports as a way to lower gas prices and spur domestic innovation. As far as renewables are concerned, Sen. Obama is a stronger supporter than Sen. McCain of government action to encourage the use of renewable energy sources. Sen. Obama has proposed that 25 percent of the electricity consumed in the U.S. should be derived from renewable sources by 2025. Alternatively, Sen. McCain has consistently opposed federal adoption of a renewable portfolio standard that requires electric utilities to obtain a certain percentage of their power from renewable sources. The split between the two candidates continues on the issue of expanding tax credits for renewable energy with Sen. Obama supporting them and Sen. McCain missing key votes on their extension. The candidate's views come back together on reducing the negative impact of automobiles on the environment. However, they have different ways of getting there. Sen. McCain would like to give consumers a substantial one time tax break of $5000 for purchasing a zero carbon emission car. He has also proposed a $300 million prize to develop a battery package which leapfrogs those commercially available now. The route proposed by Sen. Obama is significantly different. His plan will establish concrete targets for annual corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) increases while giving industry the flexibility to meet those targets. His expectation is that his plan will double fuel economy standards and save a half trillion gallons of gas and 6 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases by 2028. In closing this article proves absolutely nothing about how the candidates will act once they take office. Candidates often take positions during their campaigns that simply help them appeal to more voters. For example, just five weeks before the 2000 election, Governor George Bush said he would regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, a concept he quickly rejected after his inauguration. Probably the most telling predictor of how either candidate will act once they take office is in their views regarding the U.S. Supreme Court. Sen. McCain has said he would appoint Supreme Court justices "in the mold of" Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Alito. Sen. Obama on the other hand has praised Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter. Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter ruled for the plaintiffs in Massachusetts v. EPA, 127 S. Ct. 1438 (2007), the landmark climate change decision, while Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito dissented. This blog was written by Derek Lewis, intern for the Public Trust. |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Public Trust Environmental Legal Institute of Florida, Inc
2029 North Third Street
Jacksonville Beach
Florida 32250
(904) 247-1972 x418
Copyright © 2008 - Public Trust Environmental Legal Institute Of Florida - Designed by Ocean Web Design
